After some ground work (Representation to Registrar and RTIs to Home Department), got the PIL filed into AP High Court.
Here is the WP(PIL) petition copy…
2023-09-12 WP(PIL) for A4 Paper usage v0.1It was listed on 21/09/2022 and miraculously, I got to speak nothing but still I am happy because…
CJ to GP for Home: What is the difficulty in issuing the gazette notification for so long?
GP for Home: I need time to seek instruction.
CJ to GP for Home: Granting 2 weeks time. Listed for 04/10/2023
Legislature set a time limit of 60 days for a Domestic Violence case to be disposed as prescribed under sec 12(5) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Here are the Rules made under this Act. But the ground reality is totally different. And I decided to address this issue. Head-on.
NOTE: Since too much thought was going into decide if this matter has to dealt as a WP or a WP(PIL), I decided to do BOTH. First a WP/CrlP, for my individual case and then a WP(PIL) for public benefit.
RESULTS:
Won the individual battle here…
Won the PIL battle too despite it getting dismissed by the Honourables. Read further down this page.
Go here for other cases I dealt with personally…
Law in question (as it stands today):
12. Application to Magistrate.—
(1) An aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act:
Provided that before passing any order on such application, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider.
(2) xxxxx
(3) xxxxx
(4) xxxxx
(5) The Magistrate shall Endeavour to dispose of every application made under sub-section (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing.
Support/Inspiration from some High Courts:
Current Status in AP:
Action Taken:
Filed RTI to all 13 District Judge Court Complexes in Andhra Pradesh seeking number of cases closed within 60 working days as prescribed u/s 12(5). If no cases disposed off in 3 years, strike down Sec 12(5) from the Act.
On 2022-06-28:
Sent Reg Posts to all 13 District Judge Courts in AP, asking for information on
They have 30 days time to reply to me. Will file the PIL in August.
As expected the DV cases closed within statutory 60 days is abysmally low.
Parties:
Petitioner-in-person: Sandeep Pamarati
Respondents: From High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Union of India and State of Andhra Pradesh
Remedy:
File a writ u/Act 226 read with Art 227 seeking direction from High Court of AP to all the Trial Courts in the State which deal with Domestic Violence cases, to mandatorily invoke the time limit of 60 days to dispose of a DV case, as prescribed under sec 12(5), whenever an application for interim reliefs, under sec 23(1), was prayed/sought for also in the spirit of Sec 309 CrPC.
Dilemma: To file WP or WP(PIL)? Why not, both?
Drafting: WP Done in the form of CrlP r/w Art 226 and 227 here. WP(PIL) is pending (u/Art 226 and 227)
Reliefs:
Supporting Case laws:
Writ Public Interest Petition:
Filed this PIL [WP(PIL)/182/2022] in Oct 2022 but got listed on 14 Nov 2022 before Court-1 of AP HC. Prepared well to argue the matter and hoped to get notices issued to 15 respondents on the petition. But the ;category (For Orders of Court) under which this cases was listed’ and ‘no final WP number given’ made it clear to me that this will be dismissed.
Case status:
I went to podium and began with intro as PIP and then informed there is no personal interest in this PIL and how. That’s all… It was dismissed as not maintainable. Not sure what legal reasons were mentioned in the dismissal order. CJ said, tomorrow I will come with a petition to early dispose another kind of case type. I don’t think this is a legal reason.
Here is the Writ Petition Copy:
2022-10-11 WP(PIL) against APHC and 14 Ors v0.1Here is the dismissal order.
Sandeep Pamarati Vs High Court of AP and 14 Ors on 14 Nov 2022Interesting update…
Just after a week from date of the dismissal of my WP-PIL, the following Circular gets issued by AP HC in Nov 2022. Interesting, because earlier circular, issued in Oct 2022, did NOT have a deadline!!! Seems my now-dismissed-PIL is working it’s magic.
2022-Oct-20 Circular:
2022-10-20 CIR_ROC559-20.10.22 Directions for endeavoring to enhance the disposals
…. and then…
2022-Nov-23 Circular:
OPCELL-ROC560-23.11.22—
The following is the circular forwarded to Anantapur District Judiciary.
2022-11-23 Clearance of Old Cases (ALL those cases instituted prior to 2018)MASTER LIST here.
Goal: To question the legal basis on which Bar Council of AP is charging fees for any gaps in academics of a LL.B Graduate during Advocate enrollment process, apart from taking an affidavit to that effect.
During my enrollment process, Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh (BC-AP) had asked me to pay Rs.7000/- towards 10+ years of gap between my last graduation and LL.B degree. Since I did not believe then that BC-AP (no State Bar Council, for that matter!) never had any statutory power to levy and collect such fees, I paid the said fees duly through SBI Bank challan. My enrollment finished successfully with BC-AP on 17 March 2022 and I became an advocate enrolled with BC-AP (AP/646/2022)… Yippeee!!!
But later, I noticed from other friends who enrolled with Other State Bar Councils, that they were NOT charged any fees for gaps in their academics. This led me to dig deeper and to my astonishment, yes, indeed, no State Bar Council has any statutory power to levy any fees other than that is prescribed in Advocates Act 1961. This decision from Kerala High Court nailed it here (WP before single bench) and here (appeal to Division Bench). The icing on the cake is Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLPs with a 1-liner here. Armed with this information, I decided to challenge BC-AP on this aspect and recover my fees from them.
Steps Taken:
1. Filed a 1-page Representation to BC-AP
2. Filed a 1-page RTI application to BC-AP
I received a missed call from Bar Council landline on 23-May-2022, but none spoke when I called back. Hmmmm!
3. Received this reply from BC-AP. Interesting Answers!
2022-06-02 Reply to RTI applicationInterestingly, BCI has earlier in March replied to my RTI application stating that, they do NOT have any knowledge if any State Bar Council is charging fees for gaps in academics. The following is the proof. So BC-AP doing naughty things without knowledge of (AND necessary ratification/approval from) BCI. Spooky…!
2022-03-05 BCIND R E 22 00126-No Knowledge as to State BC taking fee for Gap during enrollment4. Filed another RTI seeking more information about the resolution that BC-AP passed basis which they are levying unauthorized fees for gaps in academics.
5. Got a reply on 27-Jun-2022.
P10 2022-06-27 Reply to RTI application dt 2022-06-146. WP against BC-AP and make BCI as respondent no.2. Petition ready. To be filed on 23rd August, 2022. A
Here is the copy of petition filed.
2022-09-12 WP against Gap fees by BC-AP v2.07. The WP is listed before Initial hearing before Hon’ble Single Bench to issue notices to Respondents. But the Judge was on leave so obtained a new date from Justice Ninnala Jayasurya.
8. As per the interim Order passed, the WP was supposed to be listed on 21-Sep-2022, but it was not listed. What do I do now?
2022-09-19 Sandeep Pamarati Vs the Secretary BCAP and Anr9. Today noticed that a senior advocate has filed vakalath in the case. Nice…
10. Waiting for listing of the case… Not going to mention the matter. Let’s see…
Index of my life goals here.
A NLIU Bhopal student, Hrishikesh Jaiswal, had filed this WP, in-person seeking effective implementation of the Motor Vehicle Rules in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Hrishikesh Jaiswal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others on 25 Oct 2021Notice issued
Taking inspiration from the article regarding the proposal of learned senior counsel K.M. Vijayan here, I decided in 2019 to explore the subject deeper in various angles.
Article 32(3) of Constitution of India says so,
32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part.—
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.
Statistics
| S.No | High Court Name | Civil | Criminal | Total Cases | Pending Writs | % of Writs |
| 1 | Allahabad High Court | 420,043 | 378,888 | 798,931 | 286,765 | 35.89% |
| 2 | Bombay High Court | 462,687 | 92,129 | 554,816 | 128,649 | 23.19% |
| 3 | Calcutta High Court | 188,685 | 36,436 | 225,121 | – | 0.00% |
| 4 | Gauhati High Court | 44,289 | 10,527 | 54,816 | 23,217 | 42.35% |
| 5 | High Court for State of Telangana | 211,877 | 36,335 | 248,212 | 129,727 | 52.26% |
| 6 | High Court of Andhra Pradesh | 186,214 | 32,288 | 218,502 | 112 (Doubtful) | 0.05% |
| 7 | High Court Of Chhattisgarh | 49,575 | 28,077 | 77,652 | 28,517 | 36.72% |
| 8 | High Court of Delhi | 72,414 | 26,526 | 98,940 | 41,854 | 42.30% |
| 9 | High Court of Gujarat | 101,467 | 50,669 | 152,136 | 506 (Doubtful) | 0.33% |
| 10 | High Court of Himachal Pradesh | 69,976 | 9,831 | 79,807 | 13,045 | 16.35% |
| 11 | High Court of Jammu and Kashmir | 43,622 | 6,788 | 50,410 | 21,048 | 41.75% |
| 12 | High Court of Jharkhand | 41,539 | 45,885 | 87,424 | 26,710 | 30.55% |
| 13 | High Court of Karnataka | 239,725 | 42,018 | 281,743 | 71,252 | 25.29% |
| 14 | High Court of Kerala | 175,453 | 45,791 | 221,244 | 85,192 | 38.51% |
| 15 | High Court of Madhya Pradesh | 250,808 | 154,057 | 404,865 | 119,088 | 29.41% |
| 16 | High Court of Manipur | 4,304 | 457 | 4,761 | 2,354 | 49.44% |
| 17 | High Court of Meghalaya | 1,308 | 160 | 1,468 | 747 | 50.89% |
| 18 | High Court of Punjab and Haryana | 283,359 | 166,895 | 450,254 | 183 (Doubtful) | 0.04% |
| 19 | High Court of Rajasthan | 414,971 | 148,113 | 563,084 | 157,668 | 28.00% |
| 20 | High Court of Sikkim | 174 | 35 | 209 | 101 | 48.33% |
| 21 | High Court of Tripura | 1,368 | 235 | 1,603 | 620 | 38.68% |
| 22 | High Court of Uttarakhand | 24,256 | 16,687 | 40,943 | 16,834 | 41.12% |
| 23 | Madras High Court | 524,174 | 61,435 | 585,609 | 87,240 | 14.90% |
| 24 | Orissa High Court | 130,834 | 52,746 | 183,580 | 81,447 | 44.37% |
| 25 | Patna High Court | 111,608 | 114,222 | 225,830 | 76,495 | 33.87% |
| TOTAL | 4,054,730 | 1,557,230 | 5,611,960 | 1,399,371 | 24.94% |
Source: https://njdg.ecourts.gov.in/hcnjdgnew/?p=main/pend_dashboard ; As on 28-Sep-2021
So, a total of 25% of the total cases pending
Identified the various stakeholders that may be impacted if this relief materializes.
If the Writs are allowed to be filed and decided at District Court level,
Considering the above facts and need of the hour, it is imperative that the Parliament makes a law (even for a limited time like a year) to decentralize the Writ jurisdiction and grant District judges (including Addl DJs, Special Courts, Family Courts, Labour Courts etc) to take up and dispose Writ petitions at their level itself.
List of Goals here.
Right to Information Act 2005 is a powerful tool in the hands of right people toward right causes. Many path-breaking changes in the public administration were brought about due to the fruitful use of the RTI Act. Union Government has setup an online portal for the benefit of public to be able to file RTI applications (for fee) and First Appeals (for free) to various Central Government Ministries, Departments, Agencies and other instrumentalities.
Many States have already setup their own State-level Online portals to receive RTI applications. But State of AP does not have any Online portal to file/receive RTI applications.
i. Karnataka: https://rtionline.karnataka.gov.in/index.php?lan=E
ii. Tamil Nadu: https://rtionline.tn.gov.in/
iii. Uttar Pradesh: https://rtionline.up.gov.in/
iv. Delhi: https://rtionline.delhi.gov.in/
v. Rajasthan: https://rti.rajasthan.gov.in/
vi. Odisha: https://rtiodisha.in/
vii. Himachal Pradesh: https://himachalservices.nic.in/rti/
viii. Maharashtra: https://rtionline.maharashtra.gov.in/index-e.php
ix. Bihar: https://www.biharonline.gov.in/rti/index.aspx?ln=en
x. Madhya Pradesh: http://rti.mp.gov.in/
Ongoing Efforts by Others
W.P.(C) No. 001040 – / 2019 Registered on 14-08-2019
Diary No.- 18483 – 2019
PRAVASI LEGAL CELL vs. UNION OF INDIA
Updates:
SC Issues Notice On Plea To Set Up Online RTI Portals In States [Read Petition]
26 Aug 2019 11:38 AM
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/sc-issues-notice-on-plea-to-set-up-online-rti-portals-in-states-147474
Last Order passed on 14-Oct-2019
States to file affidavit finally within a period of four weeks from today. The Union of India is also directed to file its affidavit during the said period.
Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
Online RTI portal: Supreme Court gives 4 weeks more to Centre, states to file replies on the plea
Oct 14, 2019, 18:36 IST
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/online-rti-portal-supreme-court-gives-4-weeks-more-to-centre-states-to-file-replies-on-the-plea/articleshow/71582892.cms
Online RTI Portal: SC seeks Centre’s response on Pravasi Legal Cell’s plea
October 14, 2019
Online RTI Portal: SC seeks Centre’s response on Pravasi Legal Cell’s plea
Supreme Court issues notice to 25 high courts for not providing online RTI facility (PIL filed by Agra-based lawyer and RTI activist KC Jain)
Jan 22, 2021, 04:30 IST
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/agra/supreme-court-issues-notice-to-25-high-courts-for-not-providing-online-rti-facility/articleshow/80391316.cms
My Efforts at AP State level
Representations were sent to concerned government officials along with State Information Commission. (List of other State Information Commissions in India here)
Based on the response received from the authorities, a WP(PIL) is to be filed.
Supreme Court has struck down the Section 8(4) as ultra vires to the Constitution which was in the following fashion,
(4) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) a disqualification under either sub-section shall not, in the case of a person who on the date of the conviction is a member of Parliament or the Legislature of a State, take effect until three months have elapsed from that date or, if within that period an appeal or application for revision is brought in respect of the conviction or the sentence, until that appeal or application is disposed of by the court.
From Paras 19 and 20,
19. The result of our aforesaid discussion is that the affirmative words used in Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) confer power on Parliament to make one law laying down the same disqualifications for a person who is to be chosen as member of either House of Parliament or as a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State and for a person who is a sitting member of a House of Parliament or a House of the State Legislature and the words in Articles 101(3)(a) and 190(3)(a) of the Constitution put express limitations on such powers of the Parliament to defer the date on which the disqualifications would have effect. Accordingly, sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act which carves out a saving in the case of sitting members of Parliament or State Legislature fromthe disqualifications under sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act or which defers the date on which thedisqualification will take effect in the case of a sitting member of Parliament or a State Legislature is beyond the powers conferred on Parliament by the Constitution.
20. Looking at the affirmative terms of Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) of the Constitution, we hold that Parliament has been vested with the powers to make law laying down the same disqualifications for person to be chosen as a member of Parliament or a State Legislature and for a sitting member of a House of Parliament or a House of a State Legislature. We also hold that the provisions of Article 101(3)(a) and 190(3)(a) of the Constitution expressly prohibitParliament to defer the date from which the disqualification will come into effect in case of a sitting member of Parliament or a State Legislature.Parliament, therefore, has exceeded its powers conferred by the Constitution in enacting sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act and accordingly subsection(4) of Section 8 of the Act is ultra vires the Constitution.
From Para 23,
Lily Thomas Vs Union of India and Ors on 10 Jul 2013…
Sitting members of Parliament and State Legislature who have already been convicted for any of the offences mentioned in sub-section (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act and who have filed appeals or revisions which are pending and are accordingly saved from the disqualifications by virtue of sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act should not, in our considered opinion, be affected by the declaration now made by us in this judgment.
…
However, if any sitting member of Parliament or a State Legislature is convicted of any of the offences mentioned in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act and by virtue of such conviction and/or sentence suffers the disqualifications mentioned in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act after the pronouncement of this judgment, his membership of Parliament or the State Legislature, as the case may be, will not be saved by subsection (4) of Section 8 of the Act which we have by this judgment declared as ultra vires the Constitution notwithstanding that he files the appeal or revision against the conviction and /or sentence.
Citations : [2013 ABR 6 236], [2013 AD SC 10 655], [2013 AIR SC 2662], [2013 AWC SC 6 5458], [2013 BOMCR 5 261], [2013 CGLRW SC 2 339], [2014 CLT SC 117 284], [2013 JLJR 3 351], [2013 JT SC 9 419], [2013 KARLJ 5 1], [2013 KLJ 3 284], [2013 KERLT 3 296], [2013 LW 4 857], [2013 MLJ 5 463], [2013 OLR 2 941], [2013 PLJR 3 261], [2013 RCR CIVIL 3 713], [2013 SCALE 8 469], [2013 SCC 7 653], [2013 SCC L&S 7 811], [2014 WBLR SC 1 69], [2013 SCC CIV 3 678], [2013 SCC CRI 3 641], [2013 SCC L&S 2 811], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 603], [2013 GUJ LH 2 408], [2013 GUJ LR 3 2209], [2013 ILR KERALA 3 203], [2014 CUT LT 117 284]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/63158859/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af2ee4b0149711415be4
Supreme Court Landmark Judgment- Lilly Thomas v. Union of India
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya ji has launched a lot of Public Interest Litigation and since the entire collection is not available in a single place, the following is a curated list for interested folks.
Initiated between 1986-1990
Initiated between 1991-1995
Initiated between 1996-2000
Initiated between 2001-2005
Initiated between 2006-2010
Initiated between 2011-2015
Initiated between 2016-2020
Initiated between 2021-2025
Initiated between 2021-2025
In this case, Supreme Court issued notice on a plea challenging the constitutional validity of the National Commission for Minorities Act 1972 and various governmental schemes for the religious minorities at the expense of taxpayer money.
Here is the Petition copy.
Neeraj Shankar Saxena and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors - PetitionNeeraj Shankar Saxena and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors on 20 Jan 2020On 2020-01-20
https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/hindus-suffering-for-being-born-in-majority-plea-in-sc-challenges-constitutionality-of-minorities-commission-welfare-schemes-for-religious-minorities
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/no-safeguards-for-non-islamic-properties-from-inclusion-of-waqf-plea-in-sc-challenges-the-constitutional-validity-of-waqf-act-1995-162164
After losing out (didn’t lose the case but didn’t get opportunity to argue in-person) in an earlier attempt here, I decided to take Writ Petition route as I am (along with my parents!) one of the affected person of this biased implementation of a convoluted interpretation of section 7(3) of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 (amended in 1986). Also, decided to decentralize my PIL prayers.
So picked up this prayer from earlier attempt and worked on writing the WP.
Issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to Respondents, such that there is no ambiguity to them whether to prosecute the Dowry givers under section 3 of DP Act read with section 7 of DP Act and no discrimination is made between Dowry Giver and Dowry Taker, under Section 3(1) of DP Act, in similar fashion as that of made by Bangladesh.
Key Point
Shouldn’t all Dowry givers be booked and prosecuted as per section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 (as amended from time to time) or not?
Arguments – Counter Arguments
Another simple point from the Bare Act itself.
Prayer
Prosecute Dowry Givers u/s 3(1) without protecting them u/s 7(3) = Article 14 and 21 compliance
Alternatively, strike down words ‘Gives’ and ‘abets to give’ from section 3(1) = ultra-vires to Article 14 and 21 compliance and contrary to legislative intent
Either-way, I win!
Full prayers from the Writ Petitions:
All the cited case laws are listed here.
ACTION STARTS:
WP (in the name of my parents, and not in my name) is filed on 14-09-2021. WP No. 20594 of 2021 (WPSR 27260/2021). Here is the affidavit.
Writ Petition seeking direction against misinterpretation of Sec 7(3) of DP Act 1961 3.5 ONLY AFFIDAVITCase Details
Filed a memo with additional information on 17-09-2021:
MEMO for Extra InfoOrder Passed on 20-09-2021
Initial hearing before admission on 20-09-2021. Notices issued to the Respondents. Government Advocates take notice and sought 4 weeks time to file Counters.
Veerabhadra Rao Pamarati and Anr Vs UOI and Ors on 20 Sep 2021Next Date of Hearing : 13-12-2021
2 Veerabhadra Rao Pamarati and Anr Vs UOI and Ors on 13 Dec 2021Since the petitioner is questioning the vires of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Registry is directed to post the matter before the appropriate Bench as per roster.
Next Date of Hearing : 16-12-2021
3 Veerabhadra Rao Pamarati and Anr Vs UOI and Ors on 16 Dec 2021On the request made by Ms. Sridevi Jampani, learned counsel for the petitioners, post this case after two weeks.
Next Date of Hearing : 30-12-2021
Due to COVID-19 situation, the Court-1 took up only part of the Causelist and rest of the cases, including mine, was not listed. No future date known.
Next Date of Hearing : 13-06-2022
Since 4 months, not a single listing was possible. Frankly, not asked/mentioned/represented appropriately by the advocate. Will wait out the Vacation period for High Court and then get the advocate changed to… myself. Hence filed the NOC obtained from previous advocate and my vakalat. (Expense: Rs.300/-)
Next Date of Hearing : 14-06-2022
I am the new Advocate for this Writ Petition.
Updated on eCourts Website…
‘
Updated on eCourts app…
Updated on AP High Court Case Status website…
Next Date of Hearing : 23-06-2022
I went and appeared before Court 1 today. Got a Court slip filled and ready. Gathered up courage (my first time facing a High Court judge, that too Chief Justice!) and stepped up to the mike. Cleared my throat and uttered few words.
Next Date of Hearing : 26-07-2022
Going to take a different plea for urgency.
On Next Date of Hearing : 26-07-2022
I went and appeared before Court 1 today. Got a Court slip filled and ready.
Next Date of Hearing : 05-08-2022
Since I was not in a habit of checking the listing of my cases (officially just two; for one, CJ doesn’t see urgency, for another, File not available at AP HC), I totally missed to appear before the Court in which this case got listed miraculously. Also since it was my 40th birthday, I had reached my home town in the morning of 5th August.
See the time at which I received the SMSs (I got them after the business of the Court ended)
[Note: Filed RTI application to AP HC, asking for the number of Writs for which Counter was NOT filed within 120 days. Interesting reply awaited!]
2022-08-05 Listing of 20594 of 2021Here is the order passed. Not sure if Counter is filed by the Respondent No.1 (Union of India)
4 Veerabhadra Rao Pamarati and Anr Vs UOI and Ors on 05 Aug 2022Next Date of Hearing : 30-09-2022
The matter came before Justice AV Sesha Sai and Justice D Venkata Ramana. Just before lunch, the case was called up and I and Sridevi madam pushed for admission of case and disposal of IA.No. 1 which is stay petition. The case was directed to be listed after vacation.
Next Date of Hearing : 10-05-2023
The previous couple weeks went in roaming around couple of high-headed posting clerks in Criminal Posting Section. I had to move a Court slip the previous day for the case to be listed today. Thanks to those who helped me.
The Division bench comprised Justice U Durga Prasad Rao and Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao. When my name was called out, I was trembling. For fear of sabotaging everything that I worked on for over 5 years. The short interaction went fine, as follows.
UDPR J(smiling): So husband is seeking prosecution of In-law?
Sandeep: No your honor, his parents are seeking prosecution of the parents of their daughter-in-law
UDPR J: Those giving dowry are to be prosecuted by law under Dowry Prohibition Act 1961?
Sandeep: Yes your honor
UDPR J: Is there any case law on this aspect?
Sandeep: Yes your honor, the case laws are annexed
Other side was directed to come prepared on next date (Section 3, 4 of DP Act) and next date was granted for 15-06-2023. Finally for Counters and for hearing (and disposal, hopefully!). No stay was granted on Trial Court proceedings.
As usual the SMS Alert came at 4.15 PM
Next Date of Hearing : 15-06-2023
Again 3 weeks of time is given.
6 Veerabhadra Rao Pamarati and Anr Vs UOI and Ors on 15 Jun 2023Next Date of Hearing : 5-07-2023
The Petition was not listed. Reason: The Judges were busy with interviewing the prospective Junior Civil Judges!!!
Next Date of Hearing : 25-07-2023
After waiting for the petition to be listed for over 2 weeks, I mentioned the matter before the Division Bench. It was directed to be listed on 27 July 2023. Yipieeeee!
Next Date of Hearing : 27-07-2023
Again 2 more weeks of time given, on Respondent’s request and the judge denied stay on trial Court proceedings. But Judge said since there is possibility of wide implications, he wants the Respondents to file Counters. Finally. I agreed.
No Order was passed though.
Next Date of Hearing : 11-08-2023
It was directed that the WP be listed on 23-08-2023 (Landing of Vikram on the Lunar south!). Again 2 weeks time given, inspite of saying finally for Counters, thrice. Bench orally indicated that they want to learn the views of Advocate General.
Next Date of Hearing : 23-08-2023
Came rushing to Mangalagiri but the WP was NOT listed. So I decided to mention it on 24-08-2023.
Next Date of Hearing : 24-08-2023
Interesting date… I mentioned the matter (out of list!) and the Bench said we will hear the views of AG today. So I had to wait until item 14 when learned Advocate General (AG) would present his arguments in a matter, after which the bench sought the views of AG. At that moment, a battery of 20+ advocates gathered around the bench. Each of them expressed varied views and they laughed it out. I had to keep my cool. The matter is listed (compulsory) for 08 Sep 2023.
2023-08-24 Court slip - Compulsory Listing on 08 Sep 2023List of mentions…
Next Date of Hearing : 08-09-2023
…
Final Outcome
Bad Behavior has blocked 1491 access attempts in the last 7 days.
